I really do feel your frustration and more- and yet it is as in the above in reality- however unfair it seems, and is. The employers know this, and that they can cancel the contract without any explanation in the first few months

They never need any explanation to cancel in CH, it's totally fair as employees can leave on the same basis.

The following 3 users would like to thank fatmanfilms for this useful post:

It is unfair if the salary agreed at the time of hiring has been cut by 10%, unless the reason has been made clear, no?

It's a normal game in CH trying to pay less than agreed, I had a company who had not paid for 2 months want a 10k reduction as I had worked 50 days in the last 6 months & there would be another 100 days that year. In the end there were 7 additional days that year & they paid 10k less than agreed.

If you can afford it, quit now. Contracts in CH for the first 3 months are usually on a 1 month notice period.

I would rather have a longer gap in my CV, then have to explain why I joined a company and left after only 6 months...

You never know, they might offer a new contract immediately, given the pain of having to hire someone. Don't forget you're talking about the manager in the hiring department rather than the line manager.

If you can afford it, quit now. Contracts in CH for the first 3 months are usually on a 1 month notice period.

I would rather have a longer gap in my CV, then have to explain why I joined a company and left after only 6 months...

You never know, they might offer a new contract immediately, given the pain of having to hire someone. Don't forget you're talking about the manager in the hiring department rather than the line manager.

Again, if you can afford it... don't quit, as such. She should tell them - I was expecting X. I know the contract was stated Y, but given that we'd verbally agreed X, I made the assumption that was the net amount. I would never have accepted the job at Y. If the salary cannot be adjusted back to X, then, reluctantly, I must hand in my notice.

The following 3 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:

I know the contract was stated Y, but given that we'd verbally agreed X, I made the assumption that was the net amount.

Caveat emptor. Not a lot of sympathy generally for those who don't in this part of the World.

Quote:

If the salary cannot be adjusted back to X, then, reluctantly, I must hand in my notice.

Clutching at straws as this is where I suspect you'll be asked to close the door as you leave. However, if you can afford it, do leave (notice during a Probezeit period is typically only a few days) and move on - don't even put it on your CV.

Why? Because if a company is ready to pull you over the table, as the expression goes, like this just in the door that's probably how they intend to continue. Better learn early with something like this than a few years down the line when you discover they haven't been paying any pension contributions in years.

The following 3 users would like to thank Aeneas for this useful post:

Caveat emptor. Not a lot of sympathy generally for those who don't in this part of the World...

Buyer beware? Not really relevant to a potentially long term employment relationship.

Sure, she should have queried the contract, but that's also really rather irrelevant (and obvious). It's not like she's signed the contract and so is bound to lifelong indentured servitude! And we're not talking about taking legal action so legal principles are also pretty irrelevant. We're talking about potential actions she could take.

We don't know the political layout of the employer. For example, it might not be her boss that's done this - you know, the person who invested hours of their time reading CVs, talking to recruitment consultants, and interviewing candidates until they found someone absolutely perfect. That boss might view the situation as some idiot in purchasing who's come along and single handled without consultation decided to scupper a recruitment decision. Companies tend not to be composed of hive minds or mindless drones - they're composed of real people who want to do well.

Therefore, if she doesn't need the job, she should fight it - "Yes, I should have raised it when I read the contract, but I am raising it now". Especially as otherwise she's leaving anyway. She hasn't got anything to lose and there's a chance the situation might be retrieved.

If she does need the job, she should suck it up if she's not prepared to take a negotiating risk) , but immediately (or after a year or whatever) seek alternative employment.

__________________In accordance with Political Correctness guidelines, I've checked my privileges and come to the conclusion that I'm awesome.

The following 3 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:

Buyer beware? Not really relevant to a potentially long term employment relationship.

Ultimately it is. Whether it is signing a contract to buy a house or for a job, you're carrying out an agreement, an exchange.

Quote:

Sure, she should have queried the contract, but that's also really rather irrelevant (and obvious).

Feel free to explain that to a court. Don't get me wrong - I sympathize - however I also know that in this part of the World (and I don't mean just Switzerland) the mentality tends to less sympathetic to her lack of verification.

Quote:

It's not like she's signed the contract and so is bound to lifelong indentured servitude!

No because there exist statutory laws that will prohibit certain exchanges even if you sign a contract. However, this does not apply in her case as there are no statutory laws that can override what she has agreed to in writing here.

Quote:

And we're not talking about taking legal action so legal principles are also pretty irrelevant. We're talking about potential actions she could take.

I know. And if I were her I'd quit ASAP (before it creates an unexplainable gap in her CV) and put the whole thing down to experience.

Quote:

We don't know the political layout of the employer. For example, it might not be her boss that's done this - you know, the person who invested hours of their time reading CVs, talking to recruitment consultants, and interviewing candidates until they found someone absolutely perfect. That boss might view the situation as some idiot in purchasing who's come along and single handled without consultation decided to scupper a recruitment decision. Companies tend not to be composed of hive minds or mindless drones - they're composed of real people who want to do well.

Yes, they're composed of real people and apparently they all want to do well. You have read the original post, BTW? I ask as it gives the background on why the salary was lowered. You might want to do that before you generalize about people's good will and motivations.

Quote:

Therefore, if she doesn't need the job, she should fight it - "Yes, I should have raised it when I read the contract, but I am raising it now". Especially as otherwise she's leaving anyway. She hasn't got anything to lose and there's a chance the situation might be retrieved.

I agree, all I'm saying is that the chances of her getting anywhere are slim to none, IMHO, given how this came about.

Quote:

If she does need the job, she should suck it up if she's not prepared to take a negotiating risk) , but immediately (or after a year or whatever) seek alternative employment.

Probably. However, it's been my experience that an employer who is willing to treat you like this, this early on, will probably spring a few nasty surprises later on when you become more dependent on a reference from them.

Notwithstanding that Caveat Emptor does not (in many countries) apply to employer/employee relationships, and that I would also immediately seek another position as I would have lost all trust in the employer...

Quote:

Feel free to explain that to a court

That's the point. it's not going to court. There's not going to be a court case. She isn't seeking legal redress. Contracts get renegotiated all the time (not just at renewal). They're not set in stone. Both sides can agree to modify them. My view she has a negotiating position, should she choose to use it. Negotiating positions are not usually over points of law!

When I want to increase my rates, I tell my customers - this is what I want and this is why it's justified. Sometimes it pays off. Sometimes it doesn't. In this instance, if she doesn't need the money, but would like to stay in the job (and thinks the crap she's been handed so far is a one-off, just internal politics and her actual boss is on her side), she has a negotiating strategy.
What does she want?
Her salary as agreed verbally.
Why should she get it?
She expected the amount agreed verbally
The amount agreed verbally was confirmed by the first payroll
If she doesn't get what she wants, she will quit which will put the company to the considerable expense of finding another candidate.

That's the point. it's not going to court. There's not going to be a court case. She isn't seeking legal redress.

I'm afraid you missed my point.

Quote:

Contracts get renegotiated all the time (not just at renewal). They're not set in stone. Both sides can agree to modify them. My view she has a negotiating position, should she choose to use it. Negotiating positions are not usually over points of law!

Of course. All I wrote is that in my opinion and given the circumstances of this decrease, the chances of a successful renegotiation are slim to none and if she threatens to leave if she does not get the original salary, then they'll almost certainly refuse and call her bluff.

Which is fine - we both seem to agree that she's better off without them. However, if she cannot afford to carry out her threat, then it puts her in an awkward situation if she does get her bluff called.

Quote:

When I want to increase my rates, I tell my customers - this is what I want and this is why it's justified. Sometimes it pays off. Sometimes it doesn't. In this instance, if she doesn't need the money, but would like to stay in the job (and thinks the crap she's been handed so far is a one-off, just internal politics and her actual boss is on her side), she has a negotiating strategy.

It was HR who demanded that the salary be reduced and should never have been offered at that level. So, I genuinely doubt there will be a negotiation. Makes for a reasonable reason for her to quit though.

Well they do though. One negotiates from a position of strength. Having contract law, legal principles et al supporting you is one such strength (although having a role that would be difficult to refill is a better one). Or do you believe that negotiating from a position of weakness makes for a good strategy?

Thanks for all the replies, I hadn't noticed there had been quite so many since I last logged in.

Too add some more to the story, especially based on some of the comments.

She has, relatively recently, started the move to change career paths.

Previously, she was doing project admin and moved to project management, however that was not exciting her and alongside she has been doing a course in Business IT & Programming with the Open University.

This is the first job she has landed in her new profession - she has received many rejections and most companies seem to have been rejecting her based on her age (34) and are looking for interns or similar that are straight out of normal university age.

It is a fixed-term contract for 6 months. Like with other companies, these tend to turn into full-time roles - pending candidate performance - with a pay hike to come with a perm role.

For most of the intern or starter-junior roles that she has been looking at, the salary has been in the range of 50-70k per year for an entry-level software job.

The phone offer was 45,600 CHF, which was later changed to 42,000 CHF.

When she got the offer, she was still excited as it's more than she's earned in the past (her first job in Switzerland).

I told her early on that it was a bit of a piss-take before the deduction, but she was keen to continue and in some way understandably, as she is keen to move forward in her new profession.

I am changing jobs at the end of this year, but with that is coming a 33-50% pay rise depending on exactly which role I choose. We have been living comfortably on my current/previous salary, so don't need the money - especially with the improvement I'm getting.

It seems I'm more frustrated than she is by their shenanigans, not so much for the money itself as it's only 300chf / month... more the insult of doing this, on top of the already somewhat low-ball offer to begin with.

For her, she quite likes the team she's working with and prefers the job to what she's been doing in the past - so on that front it is still good - only it was disappointing to be messed around like this and I could see that it's taken a bit of the excitement out of the new job.

Given that it's only a 6 month contract and we don't really need the money (although it can be useful as it's going to be going towards house savings)... along with her enjoying the job and liking the team... I'm inclined to advise her to stick out the 6 months, but she is already looking for new jobs and with a fixed end date to her current contract and 1-month notice period for the whole contract, it seems reasonable to keep that on her CV - especially as the experience will help the next jump.

Of course, she'll only accept a permanent position with these guys if they get their act in gear.

If you can afford it, quit now. Contracts in CH for the first 3 months are usually on a 1 month notice period.

I would rather have a longer gap in my CV, then have to explain why I joined a company and left after only 6 months...

You never know, they might offer a new contract immediately, given the pain of having to hire someone. Don't forget you're talking about the manager in the hiring department rather than the line manager.

Caveat emptor. Not a lot of sympathy generally for those who don't in this part of the World.

Clutching at straws as this is where I suspect you'll be asked to close the door as you leave. However, if you can afford it, do leave (notice during a Probezeit period is typically only a few days) and move on - don't even put it on your CV.

Why? Because if a company is ready to pull you over the table, as the expression goes, like this just in the door that's probably how they intend to continue. Better learn early with something like this than a few years down the line when you discover they haven't been paying any pension contributions in years.

To be honest, I think the salary is quite good for a person with new career path at the entry level, no?
Moreover, I hardly agree that her age leads to the job rejections. In my experience (around me) most of the junior project managers (I mean those "real managers") are between 35-42 years old.
Maybe it is gonna surprise you if I tell you that we have a few interns over 35 years old...

Thanks for all the replies, I hadn't noticed there had been quite so many since I last logged in.

Too add some more to the story, especially based on some of the comments.

She has, relatively recently, started the move to change career paths.

Previously, she was doing project admin and moved to project management, however that was not exciting her and alongside she has been doing a course in Business IT & Programming with the Open University.

This is the first job she has landed in her new profession - she has received many rejections and most companies seem to have been rejecting her based on her age (34) and are looking for interns or similar that are straight out of normal university age.

It is a fixed-term contract for 6 months. Like with other companies, these tend to turn into full-time roles - pending candidate performance - with a pay hike to come with a perm role.

For most of the intern or starter-junior roles that she has been looking at, the salary has been in the range of 50-70k per year for an entry-level software job.

The phone offer was 45,600 CHF, which was later changed to 42,000 CHF.

When she got the offer, she was still excited as it's more than she's earned in the past (her first job in Switzerland).

I told her early on that it was a bit of a piss-take before the deduction, but she was keen to continue and in some way understandably, as she is keen to move forward in her new profession.

I am changing jobs at the end of this year, but with that is coming a 33-50% pay rise depending on exactly which role I choose. We have been living comfortably on my current/previous salary, so don't need the money - especially with the improvement I'm getting.

It seems I'm more frustrated than she is by their shenanigans, not so much for the money itself as it's only 300chf / month... more the insult of doing this, on top of the already somewhat low-ball offer to begin with.

For her, she quite likes the team she's working with and prefers the job to what she's been doing in the past - so on that front it is still good - only it was disappointing to be messed around like this and I could see that it's taken a bit of the excitement out of the new job.

Given that it's only a 6 month contract and we don't really need the money (although it can be useful as it's going to be going towards house savings)... along with her enjoying the job and liking the team... I'm inclined to advise her to stick out the 6 months, but she is already looking for new jobs and with a fixed end date to her current contract and 1-month notice period for the whole contract, it seems reasonable to keep that on her CV - especially as the experience will help the next jump.

Of course, she'll only accept a permanent position with these guys if they get their act in gear.

I have no experience in her particular field, but I'd say she has a much better chance of going up the ladder fairly quickly if she stays in her job- despite the disappointment, which I do truly understand, get 2 years experience and show them how good she is- then- go or stay providing they are ready to appreciate her worth.

I also started my career in my early 30s, after I had our children (when youngest started school I started Uni). Much easier perhaps in the UK where going back to study later is fairly common, whereas it is VERY unusual in Switzerland, even now (although much better than in the 70s).

To be honest, I think the salary is quite good for a person with new career path at the entry level, no?
Moreover, I hardly agree that her age leads to the job rejections. In my experience (around me) most of the junior project managers (I mean those "real managers") are between 35-42 years old.
Maybe it is gonna surprise you if I tell you that we have a few interns over 35 years old...

I don't think so... not for Switzerland... although my expectation may be incorrect. For the UK, it would be a decent starter salary in this profession.

Doing various salary comparisons, I find that supermarket shelf-stackers, bus/tram drivers are on a higher salary, with less inherent job skill a no university qualification.

Going by expectations of salaries in similar positions in Basel and Zurich, she was looking at 60-70k elsewhere... which is what I expected and she did too.

Maybe the intern-jobs were just where she was applying... in Roche, I haven't seen an intern much over university-leaving age.

For someone with 5-7 years experience, it shoots up drastically... my new contract rate is 132k gross.

I have no experience in her particular field, but I'd say she has a much better chance of going up the ladder fairly quickly if she stays in her job- despite the disappointment, which I do truly understand, get 2 years experience and show them how good she is- then- go or stay providing they are ready to appreciate her worth.

I also started my career in my early 30s, after I had our children (when youngest started school I started Uni). Much easier perhaps in the UK where going back to study later is fairly common, whereas it is VERY unusual in Switzerland, even now (although much better than in the 70s).

You may well be quite right... I think it's worth her seeing where this goes despite the frustrations... I may well have been incorrect in my expectations... just going by what other offers may have moved forward with, plus salary comparison sites...

The main issue here was their twisting of the offered rate, if it hadn't been for phone rate agreed, first salary paid at that rate, contract rate differing + now the stipulation that they want to reclaim a supposed over-payment, I doubt I'd have posted the thread.

I've been through something vaguely similar in the UK and they weren't allowed to reclaim what they claimed to be an over payment.

One thing I'm quite happy about in Switzerland... they seem, in general, to realise that experience far supersedes education... something that seems common-sense... but is being skewed peculiarly in the wrong direction in the UK. My University education, despite being a good one, has had 0-bearing when it comes to usefulness in any of my job roles, perhaps other than having the university name on the CV.

She has, relatively recently, started the move to change career paths.

Previously, she was doing project admin and moved to project management, however that was not exciting her and alongside she has been doing a course in Business IT & Programming with the Open University.

This is the first job she has landed in her new profession - she has received many rejections and most companies seem to have been rejecting her based on her age (34) and are looking for interns or similar that are straight out of normal university age.

It is a fixed-term contract for 6 months. Like with other companies, these tend to turn into full-time roles - pending candidate performance - with a pay hike to come with a perm role.

Well this puts a slightly different spin on things. This is her first job in a new career. She's been actively looking for a while (you don't specify how long) and this is her first, and only, offer to date.

She has been given a raw deal. While legal, what they've done is certainly highly unethical. She should have checked the contract carefully before signing it, although even if she had, spotted the reduction and objected, I suspect the outcome would have remained the same.

Starting out in a career, or a new one, does leave people open to such exploitation. The good news is that it'll typically only happen once - in a year or two she'll be in a much stronger position. Bad news is that the HR manager (who demanded the reduction, the manager who offered the job probably had their hands tied) is indeed a prize tosser and will likely continue to be one.

Basically, unless she feels she can do better, she's at a point in her new career that she's better off grinning and baring it, then moving job once she has a few years experience under her belt.

However, from this point on she should trust her new employers as far as one might spit a dead rat - Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser.